PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter Sandøe

Publications and source records attributed to Peter Sandøe.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

After Dolly--ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals.

The cloning of Dolly the sheep gave rise to a widespread call for limits on interference with life. Until recently, the main limits were technical: what it is possible to do. Now scientists are faced with ethical limits as well: what it is acceptable to do. In this context, we take ethics to involve systematic and rational reflection on moral issues raised in the public sphere. The concerns of the general public are not necessarily valid, but they are the best point of departure if the discussion is to lead to a socially robust framework for setting limits to the use of animal biotechnology. To assess public understanding, we examine two sources of data: Eurobarometer surveys from 1991 to 2002 and a qualitative interview study carried out in Denmark in 2000. Based on these sources, we formulate, and then discuss closely, the following concerns: dangers to human health and the environment, animal welfare, animal integrity, and usefulness. In the final part of the article, it is proposed that a principle of proportionality should be the foundation for socially robust applications of animal biotechnology. Only in cases where the usefulness of the technology can be said to outweigh countervailing moral concerns, as in biomedical research, will applications of animal biotechnology stand up to scrutiny in the public sphere.

Animal Husbandry↗
PubMed2005

Ethical reflections on herbicide-resistant crops.

The introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops has caused a fierce public debate in Europe. Much of the controversy centres on possible risks to the environment. A specific problem here is that risk perception of the scientific experts differs from that of the public. In this paper, risks associated with herbicide-resistant crops are presented from the point of view of experts and lay people. In the public perception, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops are troublesome because of their association with two technologies: genetic engineering of crops and the use of herbicides. These technologies are perceived as risky because they seem to share certain features: in particular, their long-term effects are unknown and they are dreaded. Other value questions also come into play. The public seems to be concerned that risks are not outweighed by usefulness, that using HR crops is the wrong path to sustainable agriculture, that the individual's right to choose GM-free products may be violated, and that these crops are unnatural. In contrast, on the issue of the uncertainty inherent in risk assessment, experts and the public seem to share a good deal of ground.

Agriculture↗
PubMed2003

Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks.

The paper reviews psychological and social scientific research on lay attitudes to food risks. Many experts (scientists, food producers and public health advisors) regard public unease about food risks as excessive. This expert-lay discrepancy is often attributed to a 'knowledge deficit' among lay people. However, much research in psychology and sociology suggests that lay risk assessments are complex, situationally sensitive expressions of personal value systems. The paper is organised around four themes: risk perception, the communication of risk, lay handling of risk, and public trust in institutions and experts. It suggests that an interdisciplinary, contextualised and psychologically sound approach to the study of risk is needed.

Attitude↗
PubMed2003

Genetically modified laboratory animals--what welfare problems do they face?

In this article, we respond to public concern expressed about the welfare of genetically modified (GM) nonhuman animals. As a contribution to the debate on this subject, we attempt in this article to determine in what situations the practice of genetic modification in rodents may generate significant welfare problems. After a brief discussion of the principles of animal welfare, we focus on the problem of animal suffering and review some types of gene modifications likely to cause predictable welfare problems. In this article, we also consider suffering that may be involved in the process of generating GM animals. Finally, we discuss the role of GM animals in attempts to reduce, replace, and refine the use of animals in research.

Animal Welfare↗
PubMed1994

Saving the young before the old -- a reply to John Harris.

For a distribution of health care resources to be fair, it should consider the consequences for the whole lives of the affected persons and not just how badly off they are at the present moment. Since, other things being equal, a person is worse off if he dies young than if he dies old, it is fair to give scarce vital health care resources to young rather than to old persons. In the paper this ageist view is restated and defended against a number of objections raised by John Harris. According to Harris' so-called anti-ageist argument the only relevant consideration in the distribution of vital health care resources is people's desire to go on living. On reflection, this is highly counterintuitive. Instead, it is argued that both present desires to go on living and possible future happiness should weigh together with considerations of fairness. Both fairness and possible future happiness will in most cases speak in favour of saving the young before the old. A number of other problems for the ageist view are discussed, and solutions are suggested.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

QALYs, age and fairness.

... We can therefore conclude that either we should go for equality; and in that case QALYs are unfair because they haven't got enough of an ageist bias. Or we should accept consequentialism; and in that case QALYs have just the right sort of ageist bias. No plausible case can, however, be made for the claim that QALYs have an unfair bias against old people. Other things being equal we ought when distributing resources essential for survival favour the young. This ethical claim can be supported both by reference to equality (the life-time-view) and by reference to consequentialism (and the premises that resources generally will be more useful when given to young people).

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Making the EU "risk window" transparent: the normative foundations of the environmental risk assessment of GMOs.

In Europe, there seems to be widespread, morally based scepticism about the use of GMOs in food production. In response to this scepticism, the revised EU directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms stresses the importance of respecting ethical principles recognized in the Member States. However, the directive fails to reflect the critical role of value judgements in scientific risk assessment and any subsequent approval procedure. In this paper we argue that it is important to make all ethically relevant assumptions involved in the approval procedure transparent and thus available for public scrutiny. Mapping the value judgements that are made in an environmental risk assessment and approval procedure, we describe the political liberal nature of the EU legislation. We then look more closely at the prescriptions for environmental risk assessment and approval of GMOs outlined in the directive. An environmental risk assessment views the world through a "risk window" that only makes visible that which has been predefined as a relevant risk. The importance of the value judgements that define the risk window consists in limiting the information the risk assessment can provide. In the penultimate section of the paper, the significance of the risk window is demonstrated through a case study of the approval of glyphosate resistant fodder beets (Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris) in Denmark.

Animal Feed↗